User talk:JMC Red Dwarf
Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out: * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and policies, the , our , , and guidelines for proper . * includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha. * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create. * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles. * is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday. * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs. * Look up past changes you have made in your log. * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own . * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your . One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! 31dot (talk) 22:20, December 24, 2016 (UTC) Images Please take a moment to read the . All images uploaded to MA need a proper image licensing template as well as citations. Images without an image licensing template or citation will be removed from articles and are subject to deletion. If you have any questions about how to add the requirements or why this needs to be done, feel free to ask. 31dot (talk) 22:20, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :When I try to upload photos the only option it gives me is "none selected". (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 21:52, March 13, 2017 (UTC)) ::Our requirements, and US law to be honest, are higher than the preset templates can handle, so they have to be added outside of that option selector. If you are uploading images any way other than , please discontinue using that method, as only that actual upload page lets you add the required text in the summary box. You can also add the requirements right after uploading an image, but before using in on a page in the database. - 22:04, March 13, 2017 (UTC) Even with the it still isn't giving me any options besides "none selected". (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 20:53, March 15, 2017 (UTC)) How do I upload photos? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 15:48, March 19, 2017 (UTC)) Dates You are changing dates on events relating to ; could you please explain why, as there is no indication in the episode itself that the end of the episode takes place in a different year to the rest? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:21, March 15, 2017 (UTC) :The epilogue of the episode is indicated to take place serval months after the previous act, placing them in 2376. And it makes sense as they would have to, otherwise the encounter with Kira Quark was reminiscenting about would have taken place 6 years ago and not 7. At the very least the final scene would take place in 2376. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 20:18, March 15, 2017 (UTC)) Sorry, indicated where? And what encounter Quark reminisces about? The scene between Kira and Quark in the episode makes no mention of previous encounters or a number of years ago. If this is your own personal supposition, or stems from a novel, unfortunately that is not a basis on which to make changes to articles here - they must be based on valid resources as set out in our resource policy. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 06:06, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :The episode summary on this wiki says it was an encounter that occurred 7 years ago. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 06:16, March 16, 2017 (UTC)) ::Have you considered that the summary may be in error... it may also be doing what us Humans tend to do... rounding. Instead of saying "6 years and 11 months ago" (for argument's sake), just saying "seven years ago"... -- sulfur (talk) 16:32, March 16, 2017 (UTC) Bear in mind a) that MA can be edited by anyone, which means relying on self-reference should be done with caution, and b) a stylistic choice taken in an episode summary (which is written with a particular purpose) should not be taken to establish a specific in-universe fact. Always refer back to the source material if in doubt. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 17:04, March 16, 2017 (UTC) :If it wasn't 7 years ago, then it shouldn't say "7 years ago". It should say, "nearly 7 years ago" or "over 6 years ago" instead. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 22:45, March 16, 2017 (UTC)) Presumably, the person who added that did not consider it necessary to be that specific, not expecting it to be treated as gospel fact. In any event, I will be editing the sentence in question since, as I said, it does not actually reflect what is in the episode. So, the question becomes whether you will be undoing your edits based on this. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 06:26, March 17, 2017 (UTC) :Only if the phrase saying "7 years ago" is corrected and changed to something more accurate. Also, Deep Space 9 begins in mid-2369, so "6 years and 11 months ago" would still be 2376. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 01:23, March 18, 2017 (UTC)) Article types should only be used on articles that in-universe only apply to an alternate timeline. This means that if any part of the article is valid information in the "prime" timeline, then the article should use . The concept of alternate timelines and the things that cause them do exist in the prime timeline. Also, it is suggested you turn off the , as it is introducing undesired formatting. - 21:43, June 14, 2017 (UTC) :Got it. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 21:44, June 14, 2017 (UTC)) Image uplaods Please make sure to add appropriate categories to each of the images you upload. -- sulfur (talk) 01:31, June 21, 2017 (UTC) :Got it. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 01:35, June 21, 2017 (UTC)) :: Apparently not. I just spent 20 minutes doing something you supposedly "got", and sulfur spent his time doing the same the night before. Also be sure to double check that you are not already uploading files that corresponding to existing files. I've found a few in so many days that are so. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 07:41, July 5, 2017 (UTC) "Time and Again" Please stop labelling events in this episode as if the timeline the explosion occurred in was the real one, and not the alternate. From the perspective we are operating in - the Star Trek universe as it goes forward - this is incorrect and serves to confuse things for readers. Also, we don't state whether something is unknown because Starfleet or Humans did not encounter it - please see MA:POV#Undisclosed information -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 05:43, June 26, 2017 (UTC) :Ok, sorry about that. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 15:54, June 26, 2017 (UTC)) Why am I blocked? Exactly what “disruptive edits” did I make that caused the block directed against me to be put into place? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 09:30, July 13, 2018 (UTC)) What’s an edit war? And when was I involved in one? JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 10:28, July 21, 2018 (UTC) :Is this you? - 16:41, July 21, 2018 (UTC) It’s my IP address, but I rarely edit without logging in. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 22:18, July 21, 2018 (UTC)) What’s an edit war? When did my IP address get involved in that? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 02:40, July 22, 2018 (UTC)) :That address has been editing a lot recently, including a number of and reversions that are only ever "explained" in the edit summary, if at all, instead of on a talk page, like they should be. - 06:18, July 22, 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry about that; I wasn't aware that that had happened. Is there anything I can do? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 06:29, July 22, 2018 (UTC)) :You should now be able to edit again. - 02:43, July 23, 2018 (UTC) Thank you. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 04:20, July 23, 2018 (UTC)) Out of curiosity, exactly what edits were done to get my IP address blocked? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 04:53, July 23, 2018 (UTC)) Alias Status The status indicated in the sidebar for aliases is the status of the alias, not the person using it; that is, was their true identity exposed? Or were they never found out? --LauraCC (talk) 18:32, July 27, 2018 (UTC) :I have changed the status of “Luma Rahl” in an attempt to account for that. Was I successful in my attempt? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 04:20, July 30, 2018 (UTC)) You did raise an interesting point - whether the character they're portraying is believed to have died or disappeared, not just whether their true id is revealed or not. I guess that makes sense.--LauraCC (talk) 14:58, July 31, 2018 (UTC) Alternate timelines Why did you undo my edits? they are more accurate. reality is not = to universe, it is a blanket disambiguation... Duuude Bismarck (talk) 02:43, July 31, 2018 (UTC) :What? I don't understand what you're talking about. Please clarify. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 02:54, July 31, 2018 (UTC)) per the script of In the Mirror, Darkly:"T'POL: A parallel universe? The Science Directorate has examined all of these theories. They've found no evidence of alternate realities." Whoever interpreted these as synonyms in that context was missing the point that a reality in star trek is a blanket term for universes, quantum realities, timelines, simulated realities, etc. Like fruit is to apples, oranges bananas, etc. She does not outright say (or even infer) that one is a synonym to the other. Therefore we must defer to the established precedence: 'Reality' is a generalization, or as wiki calls it, a disambiguation. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 03:06, July 31, 2018 (UTC) :It seems you have missed the point. In that very line, T'Pol used the terms “alternate reality” and “parallel universe” synonymously. While other episodes used the term “reality” is a blanket term (which I don’t think anyone would deny), in that particular episode “reality” was not used as such, but instead “alternate reality” was a synonym for “parallel universe”. It is true she does not say the two are synonyms outright, though the context of her statement does imply the two are synonyms, even though this does not follow the pattern of “reality” serving as a blanket term. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 04:22, July 31, 2018 (UTC)) If you want to split hairs, she was using "parallel universe" as one or more of multiple theories in the exact context. Then she states there is no evidence of alternate realities. This is similar to a bartender saying "Pepsi? No. We don't sell soda here." It is not treated as a synonym in the same way the above statement does not. And even if there IS doubt as to which version she meant, it is customary to defer to precedence- as a lump term. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 04:49, July 31, 2018 (UTC) :What suggests that she was using it in that manner? And no, you can’t cite other episodes, what specifically from that episode suggests she was using “alternate reality” in the manner you’re suggesting? So far your proof for her use of “alternate reality” as a disambiguation seems to be allegations about what you think she said and not actually what she said. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 05:13, July 31, 2018 (UTC)) A few things suggest that is so. For one, the term "synonymous" in this discussion implies that the terms are interchangeable and mean exactly the same. why then would it even be necessary to use an "also known as" term? She also again stated that a parallel universe is a theory in that context. And let me play devil's advocate to your last argument: One cannot conclude implicitly that synonym is the proper interpretation, so why would you continue to treat it as such?. In proper English: a universe is a reality, but reality is not a universe. They are heirarchical terms. If the audience cannot unequivocally tell which version she is referencing, why insist to perpetuate something that could very well be wrong? Anyways... If we remain at an impasse, then there is yet another option. It would be better to not paraphrase with potentially skewed interpretations at all, post the quote on its own, unedited, and let the reader make their own interpretation. I cannot in good faith sit here and concede that 'synonym' is an absolutely accurate descriptor based on the evidence at hand. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 05:36, July 31, 2018 (UTC) :I agree with your solution. As you have stated, the error here is the interpretation of T'Pol's statement. It can be interpreted as “reality” being a nebulous term or a synonym for universe. Because there is no method of being certain which is correct, the quote should be added to the article unedited. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 05:42, July 31, 2018 (UTC)) Done. I hope that this version is a decent compromise for you. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 07:13, July 31, 2018 (UTC) Hold up. I see you made some edits, and while I can see your argument in part to the earlier part of the article, I see no reason as to why the Defiant influence on MU and the Discovery's time travel should just be gutted. They are valid events. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 23:14, August 2, 2018 (UTC) :First off, I didn't remove Discovery's time travel. You can thank Capricorn for that. As for the Defiant's presence in the mirror universe, we never saw an original timeline be replaced in a temporal incursion caused by the Defiant's appearance. It wasn't even implied that that happened. Saying that the Defiant's presence altered the timeline is mere speculation. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 23:26, August 2, 2018 (UTC)) Technically any absence from a timeline alters the timeline... Look at an extreme version per Archer's shockwave incident. 9 month absentee still results in no anti cloak tech and millions more dead in the war.... Duuude Bismarck (talk) 00:03, August 3, 2018 (UTC) :What does that have to do with the Defiant? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 00:14, August 3, 2018 (UTC)) Sorry, a case of mixed debates. The defiant was a 100 year more advanced tech that fell in the lap of MU sato. it altered her fate and that of the empire. This isn't cal;ed into doubt, is it? Its explicitly MU's timeline not prime. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 00:59, August 3, 2018 (UTC) :How do you know that was already the destiny of Sato and indeed the empire itself? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 01:02, August 3, 2018 (UTC)) Without time travel, the ship wouldnt exist in the past. It would be more of teh same with the occasional power struggle sure, but she was able to hold Terra prime hostage with the threat of annihilation. that is an unprescedented level of power, as they explained rather well. Without the future starship They also wouldn't have intel about the federation which would have made Michael's gamble impossible in DSC. among other things. It was strongly inferred that the advanced tech allowed them to swiftly conquer the region to expand the empire faster than ever. That may certainly lead to a familiar MU series of events allowing Mirror, Mirror to happen as planned, but it is also a notable causality change. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 02:25, August 3, 2018 (UTC) Whether it could potentially be "gumption" and 40 years of hard work that eventually granted her access to the throne is irrelevant; She had a 'future ship' that changes the immediate destiny for her... simply by being there when it couldn't possibly exist, without time travel. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 02:35, August 3, 2018 (UTC) :I see your grammar has declined, that was hard to read. Also, how do you that the Defiant's journey to the past of the mirror universe wasn't already part of the timeline. How do you know that that time travel to the past wasn't part of history already. Don't you know what the time loop paradox is? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 03:06, August 3, 2018 (UTC)) I understand the concept of events in the past being set in stone as it were, as far as the present is concerned. I also know that the influence from time travel on this point in time in the Mirror universe was significant enough to allow many events to occur which otherwise could not. If Discovery wanted to, they could potentially prevent the tholian web encounter with some choice warnings to Starfleet, which in turn could dramatically unravel the events of the Mirror universe, and anybody who interacts with it (re: Discovery). If a simple warning has the potential to change history on this scale, how is it the original temporal event, as you argue, cannot be justified as altering the Mirror universe's prior sense of existence. The topic was "examples of alternate timelines". If it is not negated, then yes, it becomes the new normal. That does not alter the fact that it is an unnatural change to the timmeline. Much like the mere possession of the Voyager Doctor's portable Emitter made many things possible which previously were not. ( ) I would argue that this device's availability was an exception to the negated events in . Duuude Bismarck (talk) 12:56, August 3, 2018 (UTC) Block What's the reason for this block? Why can't I edit? Why has my file been deleted twice? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 05:31, August 3, 2018 (UTC)) :You're going to spend the 24 hours contemplating how a moment of patience to do something correctly up front will save you a bunch of time overall. If a file is deleted, you should take a moment to use the to learn why instead of flying off the handle and reuploading that file over and over again. The only people here who can delete files know what the hell they are doing, and if you somehow missed all that information, or didn't know about it till now, all the more reason you should take this time to learn the basics of editing here. Also, stop using the and the category select module in your . There is no need for multiple edits to do something as easy as a copy and paste, and your edits will stop looking horrible to everyone else. - 05:50, August 3, 2018 (UTC) And you couldn't have just told me this, why? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 05:56, August 3, 2018 (UTC)) :You didn't stop to ask until I stop you. I shouldn't have to stop you. You should know better. - 06:09, August 3, 2018 (UTC) No, you could have left a message on while this whole fiasco was going on telling me to stop and I would have complied. Why didn't you do that? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 06:16, August 3, 2018 (UTC)) Your file Hey. Do you have any plans for the image you've uploaded or did it just to upload something? Right now it is orphaned. -- Tom (talk) 09:25, September 11, 2018 (UTC) :I was hoping to put it on some sort of “Unnamed aircraft” page, but I couldn’t find anything like that. I don’t know where else to put it. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 07:27, September 12, 2018 (UTC)) ::Unnamed vehicles seems like it might be the page you're looking for. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:57, September 13, 2018 (UTC) :::Got it. I’ll put it there as soon as I can. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 00:25, September 14, 2018 (UTC)) Speedy delete tags When you add one of these, please put a reason in the edit summary as to why it should be a speedy delete. Thanks. -- sulfur (talk) 02:38, January 2, 2019 (UTC) :Sorry that I forgot to include it; it's just that the bginfo box added later on was ruined by my mistake of labeling the image as coming from the episode "Unicomplex". I want the image deleted so that I can make a second attempt to upload the image, this time with the proper episode name. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 02:45, January 2, 2019 (UTC)) Having the image name WITHOUT an episode name is a good thing. I've rolled the image back, twiddled with the bg note, so we can try again here. :) -- sulfur (talk) 02:50, January 2, 2019 (UTC) :Thank you! (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 02:51, January 2, 2019 (UTC)) Don't be stupid Fix the shitty examples you gave instead of creating new problems. My explaination and rewrite is all that should be expected from a damn picture of a person from the timestream. --Alan (talk) 05:57, June 23, 2019 (UTC) :Maybe consider using more formal language in place of profanity if you want me to get something done for you. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 18:38, June 23, 2019 (UTC)) I explained everything that needed to be said in the edit you undid. So don't give me the sob story.--Alan (talk) 18:50, June 23, 2019 (UTC)